Shulchan Aruch: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Yesh veYesh (יש ויש): double Yesh mi sheomer
(→Bedek HaBayit: another makor) |
(→Yesh veYesh (יש ויש): double Yesh mi sheomer) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 209: | Line 209: | ||
#"Yesh veYesh" means "Yesh Omrim X veYesh Omrim Y," but "Yesh vePloni," such as "Yesh Omrim X, veHaRambam Omer Y" would not qualify under this rule; rather, Maran is highlighting the opinion of a Yachid that we do not follow.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 14</ref> Some might argue that when both Yesh Omrim's begin with a vav - "'''ve'''Yesh Omrim X, '''ve'''Yesh Omrim Y" - the rule does not apply.<ref>Magen Avot Orach Chaim 422:2 fn. 308 s.v. Vegam.</ref> | #"Yesh veYesh" means "Yesh Omrim X veYesh Omrim Y," but "Yesh vePloni," such as "Yesh Omrim X, veHaRambam Omer Y" would not qualify under this rule; rather, Maran is highlighting the opinion of a Yachid that we do not follow.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 14</ref> Some might argue that when both Yesh Omrim's begin with a vav - "'''ve'''Yesh Omrim X, '''ve'''Yesh Omrim Y" - the rule does not apply.<ref>Magen Avot Orach Chaim 422:2 fn. 308 s.v. Vegam.</ref> | ||
#When Maran presents the first opinion in the plural "Yesh Omrim" (יש אומרים) and the second in the singular "Yesh Mi SheOmer" (ויש מי שאומר), the Ginat Veradim and Kenesset HaGedolah understand that he accepts the first position and is implying that the latter one is a Yachid.<ref>However, the Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 15) feels the Kenesset HaGedolah eventually retracted his position in his Klalim, while others argue that he misunderstood the second Klal and there was never a retraction (Matnat Yado ad loc.). It's noteworthy how Maran presents a Yesh Omrim veYesh Mi SheOmer in Choshen Mishpat 213 and the Chida (Birkei Yosef Orach Chaim 561) treats it like a regular Yesh veYesh.</ref> | #When Maran presents the first opinion in the plural "Yesh Omrim" (יש אומרים) and the second in the singular "Yesh Mi SheOmer" (ויש מי שאומר), the Ginat Veradim and Kenesset HaGedolah understand that he accepts the first position and is implying that the latter one is a Yachid.<ref>However, the Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 15) feels the Kenesset HaGedolah eventually retracted his position in his Klalim, while others argue that he misunderstood the second Klal and there was never a retraction (Matnat Yado ad loc.). It's noteworthy how Maran presents a Yesh Omrim veYesh Mi SheOmer in Choshen Mishpat 213 and the Chida (Birkei Yosef Orach Chaim 561) treats it like a regular Yesh veYesh.</ref> | ||
#If both are singular, i.e. "Yesh Mi SheOmer....veYesh Mi SheOmer," it's the same as a regular Yesh vaYesh.<ref>Yabia Omer (vol. 7 Even HaEzer 13:2)</ref> | |||
#If there's an added layer of distinction to be made, it will sometimes be appended as a Yesh Omrim to a Stam, not because it's a Machaloket but because the distinction wasn't exicit in the first opinion's presentation.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 6)</ref> | #If there's an added layer of distinction to be made, it will sometimes be appended as a Yesh Omrim to a Stam, not because it's a Machaloket but because the distinction wasn't exicit in the first opinion's presentation.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 6)</ref> | ||
#When Maran appends "ויש חולקים" to a Halacha, some say he means to disagree with the position he just presented and side with the Cholkim, while others disagree and say he would have written it as Yesh Omrim if that was the case.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 10)</ref> | #When Maran appends "ויש חולקים" to a Halacha, some say he means to disagree with the position he just presented and side with the Cholkim, while others disagree and say he would have written it as Yesh Omrim if that was the case.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei Shulchan Aruch 10)</ref> | ||
